Debate contribution: Stonewall
Debate contribution by Ms Michelle O'Neill on .
- MLA
- Ms Michelle O'Neill
- Party at the time
- Sinn Féin
- Date
- 19 January 2026
- Type
- Debate contribution (made as a minister)
- Business
- Oral Answers to Questions
- Heading
- Stonewall
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 5322159
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I absolutely do. We live in a rich and diverse society, and we should celebrate, respect and nurture it. We need to learn from one another, understand one another a lot better and create a tone, particularly in the political sphere, that allows conversations to be inclusive and people to have healthy exchanges, not exchanges that are divisive or that are othering of some sections of society. It is our job to try to create an inclusive society. That is what motivates me every day. It is the kind of society that I want to build. I genuinely believe that the will of many of those who have been elected to the Assembly, as well as that of people more widely, is to have a society that is based on equality and that celebrates that society's diversity.
137 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.
Assessment
Jev’s structured answers met the documented threshold for “not flagged”.
- Overall probability that the activity is being used to promote, exploit or escalate an identity-based controversy: 0.06 (flagging needs at least 0.70; at or below 0.30 is not flagged).
- None of the five culture-war criteria was met (each was below 0.60).
- No identity-based framing was identified (0.60).
- Subject area: Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues.
- The overall probability was at or below the not-flagging threshold.
This is an AI-generated assessment of the text, made against published criteria. It is not a finding of fact about the MLA or their intentions. The Assembly record itself is the fact.
Jev’s structured answers
| Question | Probability | Met? |
|---|---|---|
| Identity framing | 0.13 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.01 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.05 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.02 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.09 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.09 | No |
| Overall judgement | 0.06 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 0.60 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.00 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.40 |
| Adopts it | 0.00 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.60 |
| Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations | 0.25 |
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 0.06 |
| Another identity-related subject | 0.05 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.04 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 14:15 UTC by jev-1.13.0 (requested as typesafe/jev) under rubric 2026.10-r9, methodology 1.9.
Disagree with this assessment?
Classifications can be challenged. A person reads every challenge, and any change is recorded publicly above with its reason.